Haha, so I would have had the hand on the wrong side of my leg...which makes sense, otherwise I'd be too close to calling a trip...which is important, because calling a trip prohibits me from calling a major or further discipline...

Godric wrote:I loved him when I was a kid but now that I know better its pretty clear Kaspar was a wreckless borderline psycho....

I point to his celebrating ending Big E's career (i probably would have been ecstatic too considering lindros jumped him during the WC earlier that year)

Lindros was also a huge baby off the ice and a bully on it who never shied away from taking cheap shots of his own. It's not like Kasparaitis knocked out someone with class (with a clean hit on a dumb oaf who had his head down) then celebrated about it.

One thing I appreciated about college hockey was that there would be more kind of "broken" plays than in the NHL because the players aren't as good. However, they're still obviously very talented so you'd end up with a bit more unpredicatable situations versus in the NHL where things are so much tighter and smooth.

Godric wrote:I loved him when I was a kid but now that I know better its pretty clear Kaspar was a wreckless borderline psycho....

I point to his celebrating ending Big E's career (i probably would have been ecstatic too considering lindros jumped him during the WC earlier that year)

Lindros was also a huge baby off the ice and a bully on it who never shied away from taking cheap shots of his own. It's not like Kasparaitis knocked out someone with class (with a clean hit on a dumb oaf who had his head down) then celebrated about it.

Still remember the look of Morozov on the bench when Kasper blew up Lindros. Like a kid on Xmas morning.

mikey287 wrote:(snip)For instance, puck comes rolling back to the point, the defenseman throws it in deep, alright fine...in high school and even college (because of those damn cages) you'll see a forward take a stride and blow that guy up just because...he can...ya know what I mean? It's not a "productive" hit, it's just a hit because you're wearing this body armor, you don't feel pain, you're 18 years old and full of testosterone and you can hit someone...

At the pro level, that hit isn't made...you don't finish that hit because it's an amateur hit...if you know what I mean...the only player I can think of in the NHL that actually makes that hit fairly regularly I think is Zac Rinaldo. It's not a "respectable" pro hit, it's a high school hit...(snip)

Mikey, is there a tactical reason that hit isn't made above a certain level of hockey? It's been a long while since I've played checking hockey (since local leagues don't want us old men getting broken hips and suing them, I guess), but my instinct as a winger was always that if I'm pressing hard on the d-man at the point and I can take the hit just after he dumps the puck, I take it. Well, not in a no-checking league, obviously. But the rationale is that situation arises all the time, and the next time it does, that d-man is going to remember getting checked and dump the puck a little more hastily... perhaps right to one of my teammates. It's a "don't give them any time and space" thing to me, and makes perfect sense strategically.

So do the pro wingers pass up that hit more often than I used to because they take themselves further away from their breakout positions? They shouldn't be out of position defensively by taking the hit; the d-man is their guy. It's just not obvious what the tactical or strategic reason for passing it up might be. And I don't remember that hit being any more dangerous than hits along the end boards or in the crease. So unless it's just part of a cult that doesn't extend down to us slow fat beer league players, like the whole thing about not touching the Stanley Cup, I don't get it.

mikey287 wrote:(snip)For instance, puck comes rolling back to the point, the defenseman throws it in deep, alright fine...in high school and even college (because of those damn cages) you'll see a forward take a stride and blow that guy up just because...he can...ya know what I mean? It's not a "productive" hit, it's just a hit because you're wearing this body armor, you don't feel pain, you're 18 years old and full of testosterone and you can hit someone...

At the pro level, that hit isn't made...you don't finish that hit because it's an amateur hit...if you know what I mean...the only player I can think of in the NHL that actually makes that hit fairly regularly I think is Zac Rinaldo. It's not a "respectable" pro hit, it's a high school hit...(snip)

Mikey, is there a tactical reason that hit isn't made above a certain level of hockey? It's been a long while since I've played checking hockey (since local leagues don't want us old men getting broken hips and suing them, I guess), but my instinct as a winger was always that if I'm pressing hard on the d-man at the point and I can take the hit just after he dumps the puck, I take it. Well, not in a no-checking league, obviously. But the rationale is that situation arises all the time, and the next time it does, that d-man is going to remember getting checked and dump the puck a little more hastily... perhaps right to one of my teammates. It's a "don't give them any time and space" thing to me, and makes perfect sense strategically.

So do the pro wingers pass up that hit more often than I used to because they take themselves further away from their breakout positions? They shouldn't be out of position defensively by taking the hit; the d-man is their guy. It's just not obvious what the tactical or strategic reason for passing it up might be. And I don't remember that hit being any more dangerous than hits along the end boards or in the crease. So unless it's just part of a cult that doesn't extend down to us slow fat beer league players, like the whole thing about not touching the Stanley Cup, I don't get it.

It's a fair question, Dan, and you're on point by and large. There are a couple of different permutations that exist that relate to timing to consider first:

- Scenario 1: Puck is sliding towards the blueline, pinching d-man is not in the zone, defending winger is charging towards the puck, the d-man is pinching. If the timing is close (a train is leaving from Chicago at 10:30...nevermind), you want to lead with your stick if you're the winger to help escort the puck out and then it's ok to finish that hit as it will aid you in winning the potential board battle and/or help you out-number on the boards if necessary.

- Scenario 2: Puck slides back to the point, defenseman whacks it back in deep or slides it to the other point. The winger has no legitimate chance at the puck, but within a stride can legally finish the check on that defenseman. This is the hit that serves no real purpose. Scenario 1 is more of a collision than anything, this scenario is actively completing a hit for no effective gain, at least, in my opinion. I wouldn't tell a player to make this hit, but I've heard some coaches endorse it a little bit...

In terms of injury/danger, I'd say it's a little bit heightened with this hit. A) the chance of the stick coming up from the d-man is pretty high as he'll be on his follow-thru... B) The d-man will have his head up here and might want to "bail out" of this overly-aggressive hit, which can always cause more problems

tl;dr version: The timed collision is ok. The out and out finishing on this hit is frowned upon/non-beneficial

pugilist13 wrote:Lol. Claude is just upset because he knows his club will be eliminated in the 1st round. You have to deflect your failures in another direction. Oh, and wasn't it Jokinen who was high sticked in the face by Krecji only to not be called.

I'd be frustrated too if my team was totally incapable of beating any of the playoff teams in the East. The East was supposed to be totally dominated by the Bs and they were just in 4th b/c of all the games in hand. Well, when you lose all the games in hand and can't beat anyone, you have to vent that somehow.

For all the comments teams and other fans make about the Pens, where are all the comments from DB or our players about other teams? Started early with Edwards being his typical d-bag self. Those with the least class are usually the ones on the soapbox preaching about it.

I remember Therrien complaining about the Red Wings, the response to the Islanders' goonfest and the Penguin's brass coming out publicly against head shots in general..but I really don't recall any of the Julien or Tortoreall esque whine fests.

Troy Loney wrote:I remember Therrien complaining about the Red Wings, the response to the Islanders' goonfest and the Penguin's brass coming out publicly against head shots in general..but I really don't recall any of the Julien or Tortoreall esque whine fests.

It's a spectacle. Imagine Lemieux behaving the way Melnyk has. I'd be embarrassed.

mikey287 wrote:I can't really explain this...it's not a dirty hit by definition, but that's not a hit you want to make a habit of really, it's not quite right so to speak but it's not wrong...I don't know, it's tough to explain over text and I don't know the intricacies of other sports to make a comparison unfortunately...

It's not worth Julien going to the media to talk about it, I'll say that much...it's not level of bad...but it's one of those hits that the players don't really like, don't really respect...

But this isn't a heinous crime or anything, but on a play like that, it's somewhat frowned upon to go a little low there...it's not the time and place for that hit selection...

This is essentially what Brick said on NESN. He never called it dirty or a penalty but said that guys expect shoulder to shoulder in that situation, which is why the Bs were pissed.

Big who cares for me. The Cooke we've seen the last few games is the one I want to see going forward.

I can't imagine a player doing something unexpected to gain a competitive advantage over his opponent. It's sad to see the petty whining of the Bruins' coach, players, and announcers in a week when the rest of Boston showed how tough and resilient they are.

I agree with Mikey's initial sentiment. This new "reverse hit" or I guess I would say "unorthodox" hit insofar as it's not shoulder to shoulder is going to hurt people. Neal has done the "reverse hit" to a few players and shaken them. He also got injured on a reverse hit. Cooke came in and went butt-to-thigh and shook McQuaid. I agree it's not against the rules, but it might be soon if it remains persistently used. Players simply cannot protect themselves.

Not that I would really label Cooke's play as a reverse check, based on the situation, but your point is well received (by me, at least). What's interesting about the quoted is that the reverse check is an extension of bracing for an impact while in a potentially vulnerable situation...it's very nature is to protect one's self. Should be interesting to see how this trends throughout the league...

TheHammer24 wrote:I agree with Mikey's initial sentiment. This new "reverse hit" or I guess I would say "unorthodox" hit insofar as it's not shoulder to shoulder is going to hurt people. Neal has done the "reverse hit" to a few players and shaken them. He also got injured on a reverse hit. Cooke came in and went butt-to-thigh and shook McQuaid. I agree it's not against the rules, but it might be soon if it remains persistently used. Players simply cannot protect themselves.

The hip check has been in the game forever and it is meant to shake people. It's not something used all the time cause its hard to connect with. It's not like he submarines him and flipped the guy, he just adjusted his point if contact and the guy didn't react correctly.

TheHammer24 wrote:I agree with Mikey's initial sentiment. This new "reverse hit" or I guess I would say "unorthodox" hit insofar as it's not shoulder to shoulder is going to hurt people. Neal has done the "reverse hit" to a few players and shaken them. He also got injured on a reverse hit. Cooke came in and went butt-to-thigh and shook McQuaid. I agree it's not against the rules, but it might be soon if it remains persistently used. Players simply cannot protect themselves.

The hip check has been in the game forever and it is meant to shake people. It's not something used all the time cause its hard to connect with. It's not like he submarines him and flipped the guy, he just adjusted his point if contact and the guy didn't react correctly.

It's always been a questionable hit with players, even though it's perfectly legal. I can remember Hilly Graves of the Atlanta Flames using the hip-check a few times that cause great consternation, regardless of it being clean by the rulebook. Then you have guys like Kaspar and Scott Stevens who submarined people.

I taught my players to not use it. It's kind of a sucker-shot on someone and can cause injuries that leave the opponent out for a long time. Not a fan of what is actually a legal hit and one that isn't used that much, but it's the kind of hit that can hurt someone badly the way the hit is usually delivered(too low).